MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: T34R

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

CIVIL CASE NO.____/2022

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. BETER BARKER (PETITIONER)

V.

PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 3

Index of authorities .................................................................................................................. 4

Cases Referred: .................................................................................................................... 4

Books Referred: ................................................................................................................... 4

Statutes Referred: ................................................................................................................ 4

Statement of jurisdiction ......................................................................................................... 5

Statement of facts ..................................................................................................................... 6

Parties.................................................................................................................................... 6

Dispute .................................................................................................................................. 6

Proceedings ........................................................................................................................... 7

Issues Raised ............................................................................................................................. 8

Summary of arguments ........................................................................................................... 9

Arguments advanced ............................................................................................................. 10

Prayer ...................................................................................................................................... 14

2|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

¶ Paragraph

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

AIR All India Reporter

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

Co. Company

Hon’ble Honourable

V. Versus

& And

Art. Article

Ed. Edition

Vol. Volume

Rs. Rupees

Corp. Corporation

Sec. Section

3|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Referred:
1. Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman (1990) UKHL 2
2. Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) 103 E.R. 926

Books Referred:
1. Black's Law Dictionary
2. A.K. Jain’s Law of Torts

Statutes Referred:
1. Code of Civil Procedure,1908

4|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondent has the honour to submit before the Hon’ble High court of Bombay, which has
the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and dispose of the present case by the virtue of the
Bombay High Court Rules(Original Side),1980 along with Order VII Rule 6A1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure,19082.

1
Counter-claim by defendant.—(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under
rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause
of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the
defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether
such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not
2
The Code of Civil Procedure,1908

5|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Parties
➢ Mr. Beter Barker is working with a law firm called Dark Industries which is situated in
Pune and his work requirement is such that he barely gets any days off. Owing to the severe
workload, in case of any planned leaves, it is mandatory that he applies for a leave several
weeks in advance.
➢ Panctum Panctorum Private Limited is a highly reputed private limited company based
in Mumbai that provides travel services such as booking of air tickets, processing the
request for visas, hotel reservation etc.

Dispute
• Despite the hectic work schedule, Mr. Beter Barker makes it a point to take a family
vacation once every few years with his wife and two kids. During November 2021, Mr.
Beter Barker was planning for a family vacation to Australia in the third week of January
2022. For making arrangements for his trip to Australia, Mr. Beter Barker contacted
Panctum Panctorum Private Limited.
• The sales team of Panctum Panctorum Private Limited met Mr. Beter Barker and explained
to him about the services provided by them. Beter Barker was particularly concerned about
the visa process. He was informed that the process of issuance of a tourist visa generally
takes 10-15 days.
• Beter Barker was given a list of documents required for the processing of visa on by
Mr. Vincent Estrange of Panctum Panctorum Private Limited. He had requested him to
secure the documents and give it to him personally so that he may scrutinise it and send it
to their Delhi Office for filing it with the embassy.
• Beter Barker managed to submit the documents to Panctum Panctorum Private Limited on
the evening of 23/12/21 at the reception desk, however, by that time Mr. Vincent Estrange
had already left the office. Beter Barker called up Mr. Vincent Estrange who instructed the
receptionist to dispatch the documents immediately.
• On 03.01.2022, Mr. Beter Barker got a call from the Delhi office of Panctum Panctorum
Private Limited informing him that an additional document was required.

• He was informed that on 24.12.2021 to 31.12.2021 the office was closed on account of
Christmas and New Year Holiday. The documents were dispatched on 21.12.2021 and

6|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

received only on 23.12.2021. On 03.01.2022 upon verification, they realised that a

document was missing.
• Mr. Beter Barker obtained the required document and sent it to Delhi by express courier on
04.01.2022 which was received by them on 05.01.2022. Panctum Panctorum Private
Limited filed the visa form along with the documents on 05.01.2022.
• On 13.01.2022, the Visas were issued to Mr. Beter Barker by the Australian embassy.
Panctum Panctorum Private Limited received copies of the passports and sent an image of
the visas on WhatsApp to Mr. Beter Barker.
• Mr. Beter Barker requested that the passports be dispatched immediately. Panctum
Panctorum Private Limited advised Mr. Beter Barker that owing to the paucity of time, it
would be too risky for the passports to be dispatched to Mumbai and instead passports
would be sent to the Bangalore airport directly.
• Mr. Beter Barker left Mumbai on 15.01.2022 with his wife and two kids to Bangalore. He
reached Bangalore airport by 14:00 hours and was waiting for the passports so board his
flight to Australia. Unfortunately, the passports reached the airport only by 21:00 hours by
which time Mr. Beter Barker had missed his flight.
• Out of frustration, he tweeted "Panctum Panctorum Private Limited- a bunch of liars,
cheats and thieves with no ethics. The worst company ever". Further, Mr. Beter Barker
uploaded a picture of his entire family stranded at the airport along with a detailed post
placing the entire blame on the company. He ended the post with #PPPLsucks and a logo
of the company.

Proceedings
• Mr. Beter Barker sued Panctum Panctorum Private Limited before the High Court of
Mumbai for negligence. He claimed a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards cancelled air tickets,
hotel reservations, mental trauma, agony etc. suffered by him and his family owing to the
negligence on the part of Panctum Panctorum Private Limited.
• Panctum Panctorum Private Limited filed a counterclaim against Mr. Beter Barker. It was
contended by them that owing to the malicious propaganda, Panctum Panctorum Private
Limited has suffered a tremendous loss of image, reputation and good-will. The social
media misinformation is false and defamatory in nature.

7|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

I. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED IS LIABLE FOR

NEGLIGENCE?

II. WHETHER MR. BETER BARKER IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION OF

PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED?

III. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED ENTITLED TO PAY

COMPENSATION OF RS.50 LAKHS TO MR. BETER BARKER?

8|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED IS LIABLE FOR

NEGLIGENCE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the co. is not liable for negligence as the
essentials of negligence are not fulfilled. It is to be noted from the facts that due care was taken
by the co. and the Mr. Beter Baker was himself negligent in his acts and it is a clear case of
contributory negligence and the co. is not solely liable.

II. WHETHER MR. BETER BARKER IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION OF

PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED?

It is further submitted that the statements published by Mr. Beter Barker were defamatory. As
all the essentials of Defamation are been met. The statements were published by Mr. Beter
Barker on Twitter and Facebook and were shared thousand times which led to social media
outrage. The statements published by Mr. Beter Braker are of malicious intent and can not be
covered under the defence of truth and fair comment.

III. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED ENTITLED TO

PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.50 LAKHS TO MR. BETER BARKER?

The argument under this contention seeks to establish that Panctum Panctorum Private Limited
are not liable for negligence and are not entitled to pay any damages. As the essentials of
negligence are not met, instead it is a case of contributory negligence and the defences of truth
and fair comment under defamation also cannot be used.

9|Page
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED IS LIABLE FOR

NEGLIGENCE?
1. According to Black’s law dictionary3 Negligence is defined as “The failure to exercise the
standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar
situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others
against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly, or
wilfully disregardful of others' rights.”
2. In the case of Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman4 it was deduced that duty of care may be
applicable only if three requirements are satisfied: foreseeability, proximity and
reasonableness.
3. Mr. Beter Barker was given a list of documents required for the processing of visa on
20.12.2021 by Mr. Vincent Estrange of Panctum Panctorum Private Limited. He had
requested him to secure the documents and give it to him personally so that he may
scrutinise it and send it to their Delhi Office for filing it with the embassy5.
4. Prioritising the process of compiling all the documents, Mr. Beter Barker managed to
submit the documents to Panctum Panctorum Private Limited on the evening of 23.12.2021
at the reception desk6.
5. With the above facts we can deduce that, the requirements of foreseeability and proximity
were not met in this situation. Mr .Beter Barker was required to submit the documentation
required for the visa application procedure to the co. office as soon as possible. Mr. Beter
Barker got the list of papers that had to be supplied on 20/12/21, and the he submitted the
documents three days later, on the evening of 23/12/21.
6. Mr. Beter Barker was responsible for understanding the importance of time and submitting
the paperwork as soon as possible, which should not have taken so long.
7. Furthermore, due to public holidays, the co. office was closed causing the entire Visa
Process to be delayed. Mr. Beter Barker was expected to submit the papers according to
the list and not miss any documents after a delay. Mr Vincent Estrange couriered the

3
Garner, B. & Black, H., Black's law dictionary 3282 (8th ed. 2004).
4
Caparo Industries Plc v. Dickman UKHL 2 (1990)
5
¶ 5 of the moot proposition
6
¶ 6 of the moot proposition

10 | P a g e
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

documents as soon as possible without scrutinising them in order to save time and lower
the risk element for Mr Beter Barker.
8. Mr. Beter Barker was keen on booking the air tickets through Panctum Panctorum Private
Limited from Mumbai to Melbourne via Bangkok. However, Panctum Panctorum Private
Limited advised him that the flight from Bangalore to Melbourne would be much cheaper
and consider that he would be booking the tickets for his entire family, it would be more
economical. Acting on the advice of Panctum Panctorum Private Limited, he got the flight
bookings to Melbourne through Bangalore on 15.01.20227.
9. Herein in the above facts the agency was acting in an advisory nature and its intention was
not to deceive Mr. Beter Barker but to only save him money.
10. Finally, the counsel submits that by the above facts it can be deduced that proper duty of
care was taken by the co. and it was not foreseeable by the co. that a situation like this
would occur.

II. WHETHER MR. BETER BARKER IS LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION OF

PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED?
11. According to Black’s law dictionary8 defamation means “The act of harming the
reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person.”
12. In AK Jain’s Law of Torts9 the essentials of defamation(Libel) are must be false and
defamatory, should refer to person and must be published.
13. Out of frustration, Mr Beter Barker tweeted "Panctum Panctorum Private Limited- a bunch
of liars, cheats and thieves with no ethics. The worst company ever". Further, Mr. Beter
Barker uploaded a picture of his entire family stranded at the airport along with a detailed
post placing the entire blame on the company. He ended the post with #PPPLsucks and a
logo of the company.
14. The social media outrage of Mr. Beter Barker stuck a cord with the general public. In no
time the Facebook image was shared several hundred times and his tweet was retweeted
several thousand times. The hashtag started by Mr. Beter Barker was trending the very next
day. The incident drew widespread condemnation on the internet.

7
¶ 4 of the moot proposition
8
Garner, B. & Black, H., Black's law dictionary 1260 (8th ed. 2004).
9
A.K. Jain, Law of Torts 219(8th ed. 2016)

11 | P a g e
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

15. The co. in this case is a well-known corp. that provides travel services such as air ticket
bookings, visa processing, and hotel reservations, among other things. Mr. Beter
Barker was instructed by the co. that the process of obtaining a visa typically takes 10-15
days.
16. When a time frame is stated (like here, 10-15 days), it is usually understood that it does not
include vacations. Due to Mr. Beter Barker's non-submission of certain documents , the
issuing of a passport took longer than expected.
17. The above facts show that the co. never lied, cheated or had any malicious intent against
Mr. Beter Barker.
18. The acts of Mr. Beter Baker led the co to suffer a tremendous amount of loss, reputation
and good-will which take years to build.
19. Finally, we would like to submit by saying that Mr. Beter Barker owing to malicious
propaganda tweeted words which were defamatory in nature and all the essentials of
defamation are fulfilled as the words were defamatory, false and intended towards the
co. and were also published. Thus Mr. Beter Barker should be held liable for defamation.

III. WHETHER PANCTUM PANCTORUM PRIVATE LIMITED ENTITLED TO

PAY COMPENSATION OF RS.50 LAKHS TO MR. BETER BARKER?
20. The contributory negligence of the Plaintiff is a defence in tort law. The landmark
judgement of Butterfield v Forrester10, in which the Plaintiff rode his horse furiously and
crashed with a pole that the Defendant had carelessly put in the road, is widely regarded as
the case that established the theory. It was determined that the accident would not have
occurred if the Plaintiff had used ordinary caution. As a result, the Plaintiff was found guilty
of contributory negligence and was unable to recover any damages.
21. In this case, it can be observed that if negligence was to occur, there was a reasonable level
of negligence on Mr. Beter's side as well. As can be seen, Mr. Beter Barker took three days
to submit the paperwork, which was a reasonable amount of time. The documents were not
submitted in their whole, and one document was still missing, despite the fact that it took
three days.

10
Butterfield v. Forrester 103 E.R. 926(1809)

12 | P a g e
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

22. Mr. Beter Barker , as a member of the service class, is supposed to be aware of upcoming
public holidays. As a result, there was a delay in the processing of the papers. Thus, it is
clear that Mr. Beter Barker was likewise negligent in the same way.
23. Volenti non fit injuria is a common law doctrine that states that if someone willingly sets
herself in a situation where harm may occur, knowing that some degree of injury may occur,
they cannot make a tort claim against the other person. Only the risk that a reasonable
person would believe them to have incurred as a result of their acts is covered by volenti.
A man cannot be considered to be genuinely willing unless he has the ability to choose
freely, and freedom of choice necessitates not only full awareness of the conditions
surrounding the exercise of choice, but also the ability to make smart decisions.
24. Mr .Beter Barker was also free to make his own decisions about his vacation to Australia
in this instance. The co. was only an advisory body that provided proposals and the best
guidance to Mr. Beter Barker in order for him to have a feasible vacation without incurring
any further damages.
25. All of the actions taken by the co. were done with the Mr. Beter Barker's approval, and
when the co. advised Mr. Beter Braker to ship the passports directly to the Bangalore
Airport, the Plaintiff agreed, despite the significant danger involved.
26. Finally, the counsel would submit that there was contributory negligence on the part of
Mr. Beter Barker and he also voluntarily knew all the risks involved. Thus, the co. should
not be held liable for paying compensation of Rs. 50 Lakhs to Mr. Beter Barker.

13 | P a g e
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to adjudge and declare that:

1. Panctum Panctorum Private Limited should not be held liable for negligence.

2. Mr. Beter Barker be held liable for defamation.

3. Panctum Panctorum Private Limited should not be entitled to pay damages worth Rs. 50
Lakhs to Mr. Beter Barker.

And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Respectfully Submitted,

Counsel for Respondent

14 | P a g e
NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION